Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bibliometric analyses are capable of demonstrating the history and the tendency of scientific and technological development. This article aims to use big scientific data to explore the present status of plant phenomics, based on which sound recommendations could be provided for the development of this emerging research domain. [Methods] Based on academic outputs such as research publications, citations, collaborations, research areas, academic organizations, and authors retrieved from the Scopus database between 2013 and September 2018, statistical analysis tools such as SciVal and CiteSpace 5.0 were applied to quantitatively visualize the development and tendency of plant phenotyping, plant phenomics, and related research areas. [Results] This Scopus-based research has retrieved 20 953 articles that are related to plant phenotyping, plant phenomics, and related applications in plant research, with a total citation of 217 105 and 2.0% of them are TOP1% highly cited papers. According to total citations, the TOP10 countries are the United States, China, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Australia, Spain, Canada, and the Netherlands. The TOP10 research organizations based on total citations are Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), the US Department of Agriculture, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Cornell University, Spanish National Research Council, University of California at Davis, Universite Paris-Sacly, and Wageningen University & Research. The scholar with the most academic outputs is Alisdair Robert Fernie at the Koch Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Germany. He has published 58 papers using plant cellular phenotypes and was cited 1 246 times. At present, plant phenomics research has focused on a number of plant species, including Arabidopsis, rice, wheat, corn, tomato and soybean. [Conclusion] As an emerging research domain, plant phenomics requires interdisciplinary efforts to integrate agriculture, cultivation, breeding, and other plant biological research with computing sciences. In particular, high-throughput image analysis and related data analysis has become an important research theme at the present stage, with the topical saliency index reaches 98.8%, a very high relevance score.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.124 | 0.184 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".